Michele Bachmann to endorse Mitt Romney

posted at 11:23 am on May 3, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

I’d call it a pretty telling sign of the times that one of ObamaCare’s most vociferous critics is throwing her support behind the former governor responsible for RomneyCare, but with the GOP race virtually decided, the intra-party fun n’ games are over and the conservative legions are steeling themselves to do what it takes to unseat Barack Obama in November — I repeat, this is not a drill. Rep. Michele Bachmann was among Mitt Romney’s harsher detractors before she dropped out of the presidential race in January — she’s said upon at least one occasion that a victory for the “candidate who has given the blueprint for ObamaCare” is just “not going to happen” — could make for some uncomfortable soundbites, but thus goes primary politics.

Along with this week’s endorsement from southern Tea Party freshman Rep. Tim Scott, Bachmann’s jumping on the ‘Mitt-train’ may help to convince any socially conservative and Tea Party factions still ruing the losses of Santorum or Gingrich. Bachmann will join Romney and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (who’s also pledged his support to Romney) in his state today — the purplish commonwealth is already becoming a focus in both Romney and Obama’s respective campaigns — to offer her sales pitch for party unity.

But while Bachmann has remained coy about her endorsement plans since leaving the race, she has also softened her rhetoric on Romney, and insisted that she would be a force for GOP unity behind the party’s eventual nominee.

Echoing similar sentiments by Santorum and other former candidates, Bachmann has emphasized that any Republican would be better than President Obama, allowing her to avoid contradicting herself with her endorsement for Romney, which was first reported by the National Review.

“We will see an open ear from Mitt Romney,” Bachmann told CNN in late April. “So far, he has proved to be a person who listens. That’s what we need — a nominee who listens.”

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

So, Buckshot, do you agree with Romney or not? Let’s resolve this one before we move on.

Gunlock Bill on May 3, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Romney supported gun control while in power, his words since then are irrelevant. Anyone can lie when out of power, Obama is proof enough of that. What evidence do you have that Romney didn’t support the bills he signed into law that expanded gun control in MA?

History says he has no chance. FDR won during the depression against better candidates than Mitt.

Steveangell on May 3, 2012 at 1:51 PM

We’re making history now and you’ll be on the wrong side of it.
Obama the Boy King will only have one term. Sorry to disappoint you.
Who are these pure conservative candidates you speak of anyway?
Any of them politicians? Can you name one? I suspect they’re just one endorsement away from Rinoville.

Romney supported gun control while in power, his words since then are irrelevant. Anyone can lie when out of power, Obama is proof enough of that. What evidence do you have that Romney didn’t support the bills he signed into law that expanded gun control in MA?

I agree that Jindal would be a great presidential candidate. If everyone is convinced that there really is this “next-in-line” thing going on in the Republican party (which I personally don’t), then even if Romney loses with Jindal as VP, Jindal would be the heir apparent, right?

GOPRanknFile on May 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

..Jindal never set me on fire — especially after that tepid GOP response speech that he blew. That said, my feelings are totally superficial and without merit. Meant sincerely: can those of you who like him provide explanations of your passion?

While not perfect by any means, this bill represents a step forward for gun owners in Massachusetts. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 36 – 1 in favor and the House passed it with no amendments or debate on a “voice” vote. This represented by far the broadest support a reform bill has ever seen in the Massachusetts State House. Only one legislator in the entire building voiced opposition to the bill.

S.2367 does the following:

Instructs the Executive Director of the Criminal History Systems Board to make the Firearms Identification Card and the License To Carry a Firearm the same size as a driver`s license;

Changes the term of a Firearms Identification Card and a License to Carry to six years;

Creates a grace period of 90 days, if the Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry holder applies for renewal before the expiration date, and if the application for renewal is not denied;

Creates a Firearms Licensing Review Board. Applicants disqualified by a misdemeanor record, from obtaining a License To Carry or Firearms Identification Card, may file a petition for review of eligibility with the board, five years after conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole;

and in the case where an officer is confiscating the guns of a person with an expired license, requires the officer to provide a written inventory and receipt for all guns.

Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new “Assault Weapons” ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms. The three sections referencing them merely dealt with re-affirming the definitions of what an “Assault Weapon” could be.

Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong.

Myth: Some headlines claimed that the legislature voted to expand the ban on the sale of the same 19 guns that the federal government has banned.

Fact: The guns are already banned in Massachusetts . The legislature only voted to clarify the definition of so-called “assault weapons,” but made no changes to the number of guns included.

Myth: The gun ban was extended.

Fact: Our state`s gun ban was not due to disappear, nor will it become invalid if the federal ban sunsets in September.

Fact: NRA and Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms.

My Position:
If you are a Republican politician, and you support Mitt Romney’s positions on the issues, then you are not a conservative. Because his positions on the issues are not conservative.

I also feel that demanding that people refrain from legitimate criticism of a candidate’s record and positions, just because they are in the same party, is contrary to conservative ideals.

Buckshot Bill on May 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Thank you for answering.

I personally do not mind Republicans Party members who are critical of a candidate at any point of the process, either pre- or post-primary, unlike the Christine O’Donnell hypocrites within the GOP who whined about those of us who didn’t refrain from airing our problems with her, while they themselves have laughably shown no such hesitancy to go after Mitt.

No, my problem with people like you is that it seems like you have a political litmus test that you expect other Republicans to honor as well. What do you believe Michelle Bachmann should do – never endorse Mitt before the election as she says that he’s not Conservative enough, and/or endorse a third-party candidate, and/or even endorse 0bamessiah Himself, and at the same time feel that she still deserves to be seen as a good Republican?

If you say “yes” to that, I ask you, do you know what it means to be a member of a team? What’s your response to a GOPer who would say, “I’ve got a good reason to question Ms. Bachmann’s loyalty to the Party, and if she wants to go down the path of withholding her endorsement of the primary-winning candidate, she should consider herself a legitimate target to be called a user of the GOP for her own political purposes.”?

Romney supported gun control while in power, his words since then are irrelevant. Anyone can lie when out of power, Obama is proof enough of that. What evidence do you have that Romney didn’t support the bills he signed into law that expanded gun control in MA?

So? Reagan signed abortion laws in California. Later he changed for the better. Why is it ok for Reagan to change for the better but not for Romney?

Gunlock Bill on May 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Yes Reagan did do this.

Originally a member of the Democratic Party, his positions began shifting rightward in the late 1950s, and he switched to the Republican Party in 1962. After delivering a rousing speech in support of Barry Goldwater’s presidential candidacy in 1964, he was persuaded to seek the California governorship, winning two years later and again in 1970. He was defeated in his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 as well as 1976, but won both the nomination and general election in 1980, defeating incumbent Jimmy Carter.

Does this sound anything like Mitt. Mitt’s Conversion started in 2005 when he decided to run for President as a Republican. But his positions only changed when he was forced to change them for political purposes and even then the slightest amount possible. There is not a single reason to believe Mitt had any actual conversion from his Democrat Liberal Moderate win in 2002 when he dissed the Republican Party as a “technicality”. Not a single action.

Good for her. Bachmann is doing what any sensible, pragmatic conservative should do. She understands how crucial it is that we send the community organizer from the southside of Chicago packing this November.

Romney has more effectively targeted Obama in the past week than McCain did during the entire 2008 election cycle. My support has gone from tepid to somewhat jazzed. THAT, my friends, is the endorsement that counts.

Mutnodjmet on May 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

LOL. I like the Romney I’m seeing right now. His campaign is more competent and much better organized than Team Bambi right now.

What will Sarah’s remaining die-hard supporters who are also ABRers say when she endorses Mitt, which is an inevitability? Shall we start taking bets on what % of them will start rationalizing in defense of her? :)

Okay, looking at some previous conversations, I see some topics that I’ve been wanting to touch for awhile.

*touch touch.*

What exactly IS the statute of limitations on changing your position? People criticize Romney for changing his position on a number of issues, such as being pro-abortion at one point, but if he had changed his position two years earlier would that have been okay?

I mean, Santorum was pro-abortion at one point, he changed his position after being elected to a position of power, not unlike Romney. The only difference is the time frame, Romney changed his position roughly ten years after Santorum did. So why is it okay to change your position fifteen years ago but not okay to change your position seven years ago?

My suspicion is that it has nothing to do with time. A lot of voters were willing to overlook Santorums flip-flops because they could otherwise relate to him.

Frankly, I’m giving Romney the benefit of the doubt on this one, for two reasons. People say that he was running for President in 2005, but that is not quite right. That was three years before the 08 election even started shaping up, and from what I’ve read he was still seriously considering running for a second term as Governor at that point. If that were the case, and it is certainly logical that he’d try for a second term, then going pro-life would’ve been a horrible political move. This is Massachusetts here, while the pro-life position was gaining popularity nationally at this time, chances are it would’ve been an unpopular position within the state.

So, it was politically unwise under the circumstances, and he did it anyway. That doesn’t really seem like a move of political expediency if you ask me.

.Jindal never set me on fire — especially after that tepid GOP response speech that he blew. That said, my feelings are totally superficial and without merit. Meant sincerely: can those of you who like him provide explanations of your passion?

The War Planner on May 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Was Jindal’s rebuttal speech lackluster? Absolutely. He was trying to be someone he wasn’t. He was probably advised beforehand to talk slowly since he’s naturally a pretty fast talker. Clearly, that doesn’t work for him. Also, he’s never been much of a speech-giver when relying on a teleprompter. He’s much more effective when speaking extemporaneously. If you get a moment, check out his speech at oil spill rally.

To answer your question about why we love him so much, there are many things. He has the most impressive resume in politics, he’s brilliant (just look at his academic credentials), he’s likable, he’s the most popular governor in the nation (so popular the Dems couldn’t even find a legit candidate to run against him in his reelection race), he’s done a tremendous amount for one of the most corrupt states, he’s great at press conferences and very skilled at debating, engaging in interviews, he has no baggage, he has southern cred while having independent appeal, has both executive and legislative experience, and he has a great life story.

People say that he was running for President in 2005, but that is not quite right. That was three years before the 08 election even started shaping up, and from what I’ve read he was still seriously considering running for a second term as Governor at that point. If that were the case, and it is certainly logical that he’d try for a second term, then going pro-life would’ve been a horrible political move. This is Massachusetts here, while the pro-life position was gaining popularity nationally at this time, chances are it would’ve been an unpopular position within the state.

So, it was politically unwise under the circumstances, and he did it anyway. That doesn’t really seem like a move of political expediency if you ask me.

WolvenOne on May 3, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Not people Mitt said he was considering it. Only then did he actually start to change positions.

It requires actual actions. Winning office as a real Republican like Regan did twice after changing from Democrat. It takes time otherwise you are jumping Jim Jeffords. Well Mitt is still Jumping Jim. All evidence is he only changed positions to fool people into voting for him for President.

In fact just today this article.…Romney softened his position on student loans last month when he endorsed Obama’s proposal for the federal government to continue subsidizing loans for low- and middle-income students. If Congress does not intervene by July 1, student loan rates will jump from 3.4 percent to 6.8. …
He was against taxpayer bailouts for student loans. This will cost 6 billion a year total cost 120 billion or more. Exactly where does Mitt think the money will come from. The money fairy?

What will Sarah’s remaining die-hard supporters who are also ABRers say when she endorses Mitt, which is an inevitability? Shall we start taking bets on what % of them will start rationalizing in defense of her? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on May 3, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Well, I was a die hard Sarah supporter. She is the only candidate that I would have been passionate about, and gone all in for, this year. However, there is another issue I am passionate about – and that is sending Barack Milhaus Nobama packing back to Chicago. The future of my kids and the future of this republic is at stake here.

I don’t care what anyone says – Romney is NOTHING like Obama. I’m asking you ABR folks to follow Sarah’s example and help us out. Let’s get busy and get him elected, hold the House, take the Senate, and elect more Constitution Conservatives. I really feel that then we can hold Romney’s feet to the fire. If he screws us – we’ll make him a one termer.

At least Gingrich and Santorum actually were Republicans not just technically one when they ran for office and won.

Steveangell on May 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Gingrich and Santorum? Hardy har har! You mean Big Gov Santorum who is pro-union and voted against Nat’l Right to Work Act? Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization, Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws, Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device, Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools, Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18, Voted for minimum wage increases six times, Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens, voted against foodstamp and Medicaid reform. I haven’t even approached his atrocious tax record.
And Gingrich? Dede Scozzafava, Ethanol subsidies, HEALTHCARE MANDATES (do you need the link or are you capable?)lobbyist for Freddie/Fannie but I’m most interested in the ethical violations that made him resign as Speaker. Those records are sealed you know. Must’ve been pretty good to force those fat greedy fingers to relinquish that kind of power.
You’ve proved what I suspected. You have no idea what a True Conservative really is. Possibly because it’s a mythical creature that does not exist.

I don’t intend on twisting myself into a pretzel to defend Romneycare. All I know is that in every speech, Mitt states that he will repeal Obamacare. Let’s hold him to that. If he screws us, he deserves to be a one-termer as far as I’m concerned.

You are cherry picking a few isolated votes. Some he did for his state others I feel he was wrong on.

Point is he ran as a Republican twice and won. Gingrich ran numerous times and won.

Mitt Romney never ran once as an actual Republican. He was considering running in Utah but decided against it. But by then it was too late to get on the Democratic Primary ticket. He used the address of a house his son was renovating the basement anyway, to qualify to run but he needed a Party that was on the ballot. The Republican Party had a guy on the ticket but he was only running because it assured him more money for his state senate run. Mitt contributed to that legally and he dropped out and let Mitt run. That and a few other meetings with Republican got him on the ticket.

Throughout the race Mitt made it clear he was a Liberal Moderate Democrat. The Republican Registration just a technicality caused by his late entry into the race.

Sorry but he is a Democrat. He is NOT a Republican having never won a single race running as a self proclaimed Republican on the Republican Ticket.

Of course he was considering running for President at that time. He was one of the more popular governors in the country at that point, it would’ve been foolish not to consider utilizing it. However, considering and actively deciding are two different things. He was still actively considering running for a second term as well, but instead changed position and vigorously advocated a position that cost him a large chunk of his popularity within the state.

So, again, at the time that wasn’t a move of political expediency. It would’ve been, if he had definitively made up his mind to run for President by that point, but he hadn’t so it wasn’t.

History says he has no chance. FDR won during the depression against better candidates than Mitt.

Steveangell on May 3, 2012 at 1:51 PM

What history are you looking at? The history I’m looking at says that it’s Obama who is in deep trouble. No incumbent (except FDR) has ever been reelected with unemployment where it is, and GDP growth as low as Obama has. Every incumbent, including those who lost, had a significant lead in the polls at this point. Obama is trailing in some and in a dead heat in others.

I don’t care what In Trade says; I don’t care what the media says. Obama is in big trouble – and his people know it.

Does this sound anything like Mitt. Mitt’s Conversion started in 2005 when he decided to run for President as a Republican. But his positions only changed when he was forced to change them for political purposes and even then the slightest amount possible. There is not a single reason to believe Mitt had any actual conversion from his Democrat Liberal Moderate win in 2002 when he dissed the Republican Party as a “technicality”. Not a single action.

FDR won reelection in the only other one. This says you can easily do it.

Plus Mitt is a Moderate and since Nixon no Republican that dared run the least bit Moderate won. None of them even GHW Bush who turned a bit moderate and lost his second term.

No Mitt is the one who would have to break precedents not Obama.

Steveangell on May 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Well, I don’t care what you think Mitt is in his heart – he’s campaigning as a conservative right now. That’s my whole point. We elect more Constitutional Conservatives, hold the House, take the Senate – and we can hold Mitt’s feet to the fire. If he doesn’t govern as a conservative, he’s toast.

At least he’s not a Marxist who hates the country. He says he’ll reform the tax code, lower taxes, and reduce the size of government. He says he’ll secure the border and be tough on immigration. He says he’ll repeal Obamacare. He says he’ll increase domestic energy production. He says he’s now pro-life. He says he supports a strong military, and like Reagan, believes in peace through strength. He supports the Ryan Budget – and its entitlement reforms. Do you honestly think, after campaigning on all these positions, that he would go into office and govern like some liberal Democrat?

Lighten up Francis. You really are quite the dramatic fear mongerer. Nobody and I mean Nobody is coming for our guns. Not that you have one anyway. Ever hear the term “from my cold dead hands”?
If you are so concerned about our 2nd Amendment rights why don’t you do a little research on the voting record of Maobama or doesn’t it suit your Anti-Romnney agenda? While in the Senate there were only two issues he didn’t vote “present” for anti-gun and pro-abortion. You don’t fear the Marxist Tyrant but you fear Romney?
You are no Conservative.

Are you going to be voting for the democrat just because Mitten’s has been a terrible president, you traitor?

Just because he didn’t repeal Obamacare, how could he, the republicans don’t have 535 members in congress yet, how dare you hold him accountable for his poor perfomance!

Buckshot Bill on May 3, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Hell, I’m not sure what I would do. But if Romney were to get into office and govern like some liberal democrat (the way these ABR’s think), the base would be so dispirited he would probably be a one termer. It would destroy the Republican Party and conservatives might break off to a third party.

I only have so much room to type here. I could go on all day highlighting Santorum’s abhorrent record. Do you need more?
It’s lengthy and ugly and not at all conservative. Besides we have bigger fish to fry and I’d rather not focus on an also-ran, I was just pointing out your ignorance. Since he’s your ideal candidate one would have thought you’d be remotely knowledgeable about his time in office.

OK. So you’re essentially saying that Mitt Romney is a radical leftist, a Marxist. That he’s no different than Obama (sigh). Do you really think that he would get into office and then do a 180 on all these conservatives positions he’s taking?

What do you think conservatives should do – now that Romney is the presumptive nominee? Should we all stay home, which would help Obama? Should we actually vote for Obama? What are you going to do in November?

Him following Obama like a monkey on taxing the top 1%, College Loans, raising taxes, Romney/Obama Care (sorry Obama was the following monkey on that), severely restricting gun ownership.

Links please? On taxes, I remember when he came out with his plan. His plan was to CUT taxes on everyone “except” the top 1% By the debate that evening, he had modified his plan to include a tax cut on everyone. Please direct me to where he has proposed to raise taxes, and I’d like to see his proposal for restricting gun ownership.

Hey Steveangell, did you even read this post by Gunlock Bill regarding the gun registration issue? Can you even answer a question, or is all communication with you one way? I’m starting to think you are basically full of crap.

I don’t know how to get it through your thick head. The gun registration was put into law BEFORE Romney was Governor. He didn’t implement it. He made it less onerous.

Only two sides now: Obama’s and not Obama’s. If you are trashing Romney at this point instead of manning your station, you are on Obama’s side. And no, it isn’t because Romney is too liberal, its because you are a childish douche.